 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | It Would Have Changed Nothing Everyone here posts about how this law would have enshrined "redlining" and do all sorts of other mean, evil things which would have restricted rural broadband deployments.
How is this different than what is currently going on? Most telegraph companies and cable companies already redline rural areas by not offering Internet services to any of them. The net effect of any bill which would "ban" redlining will be a reduction in all broadband deployments anywhere as any provider won't to take the risk of building out to a rural area which will not only cost more but also carries the greater risk of loss on such an investment.
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
 quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | Then why do they push to stop municipalities from deploying their own. Why do they push to stop all regulation on unbundled loops (and end up increasing the price so 3rd party can afford it)? If they can't make money on it, don't stop anybody else from doing it! |
|
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:Everyone here posts about how this law would have enshrined "redlining" and do all sorts of other mean, evil things which would have restricted rural broadband deployments. How is this different than what is currently going on? Most telegraph companies and cable companies already redline rural areas by not offering Internet services to any of them. The net effect of any bill which would "ban" redlining will be a reduction in all broadband deployments anywhere as any provider won't to take the risk of building out to a rural area which will not only cost more but also carries the greater risk of loss on such an investment. Isn't it contrary to the purposes which the form basis for the establishment of USF fees to allow redlining? |
|
